The CardBoard
However this game turns out - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: However this game turns out (/thread-7934.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: However this game turns out - StanFan88 - 10-04-2014

Enough whining about the refs - yes they sucked but unlike 2012 they aren't the reason Stanford lost today.

The offense is horribly broken, and major changes are needed - on the field, on the sideline, and up in the booth.  This team is headed for 7-5 and the Vegas Bowl if it doesn't happen.

Re: Well, here's a fact, not an opinion - JohnR34231 - 10-05-2014

(10-04-2014, 09:21 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=10788.msg100879#msg100879 date=1412482357]Stanford, 9 penalties, 66 yards
the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, 1 penalty, 10 yards

Refs didn't make Lyons blow two coverages on that drive. Refs didn't make Ty and Cajuste drop multiple balls all game. Refs didn't make Hogan play poorly all day. Were there some calls against us? Sure, that happens every game. We played like ass and we deserved to lose, don't try to blame the refs.
[/quote]

That's the bottom line. Good teams overcome bad calls to win football games. We didn't. End of story.

P.S. At the risk of repeating myself. It's not so much this individual game. It's just every time we lose there is a thread whining and complaining about the officiating (at least it seems that way). To me it gets old, but obviously to some people it doesn't.

Re: However this game turns out - Bruce Wang - 10-05-2014

Biased officiating is part of any game against the Frollos.  It's not just against us.  When we schedule them, we have to accept that as part of the game.  So we have to put up with this officiating until 2025.  We have to, as JPRI points out, overcome it - as in beat them senseless.

Re: However this game turns out - 81alum - 10-05-2014

(10-04-2014, 07:54 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=NYCCardinalFan link=topic=10788.msg100804#msg100804 date=1412468090]
We were out gained 370 yards to 205 yards.  Hogan was off all night and we couldn't generate much of a running game.  We were lucky it ended in a one-possession game.  I felt we clearly deserved to lose (unlike the U$€ game).

If we aren't going to modify our offense around Hogan (and his clear limitations), I am fine giving Chryst or Burns a shot.  Hogan has regressed this year and is not a good QB at the moment.

Chryst is not going to play this season so get over it.  We were not a good team Luck's first year yet did not play him, even tho reports are he was the best QB on the team.  Whether you agree, in retrospect, that was a good decision or bad, if Luck didn't play Chryst is not playing.  Hogan is not worse than Pritchard was.
[/quote]
That is a very interesting comment.  I have thought for a long time now that Hogan has the talent to play much better than he has been playing--but that he needs a lot more coaching to improve his progression in particular.  That has been obvious since last year. 

Pritchard is the current quarterback coach.

Re: However this game turns out - Extra Point - 10-05-2014

(10-04-2014, 07:49 PM)Publius link Wrote:I feel like even if it's PAC-12 refs, they overcompensate the other way to appear fair.  That trapped ball that didn't get overturned?  Even the guys in the booth that are on the ND payroll thought that should have been overturned.

The replay official was from the ACC, just like two years ago.

Re: However this game turns out - 81alum - 10-05-2014

The problem with frosh quarterbacks is not their physical skills but the complexity of the Stanford offense.  You can argue with the way Shaw has constructed the offense, but it is very complex and takes time to learn.  Hogan could only function with a limited package at first.  Even Goff got to C.al a semester early so he could learn the offense prior to Fall. 

Now, we might benefit from a simpler offense--but a frosh could not run our current offense.  Even sophomore Hogan had to work into it gradually.  The concept is that our sophisticate pro-style offense should attract excellent QBs who want to play in the NFL, since they get pro-training and can show off their ability to deal with multiple sets, calling plays at the line, etc.  It is supposed to help in recruiting.  We might not have gotten Chryst if we played the kind of offense that a frosh could step right into.

So, like Luck as his frosh year, Chryst is out for the the year.  The alternative to Hogan is probably just Crower.  I would be tempted to give Crower a "package" and let him play some downs as we did with Hogan for a few games under Nottingham.  Let's see if Crower can be a much more accurate pocket passer and change things up from time to time.  Give the defenses something else to prepare for, and give Crower some opportunities. 

Re: However this game turns out - stupac2 - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 12:44 PM)81alum link Wrote:Hogan could only function with a limited package at first.

I think it says something that that was also his best year so far. The coaching staff keeps giving him more responsibility and he keeps performing worse. Maybe it's time to roll things back, simplify, and play to his strengths rather than continue to pretending that he can do the stuff Luck did.

Re: However this game turns out - Stymie - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 12:44 PM)81alum link Wrote:The problem with frosh quarterbacks is not their physical skills but the complexity of the Stanford offense.  You can argue with the way Shaw has constructed the offense, but it is very complex and takes time to learn.  Hogan could only function with a limited package at first.  Even Goff got to C.al a semester early so he could learn the offense prior to Fall. 

Now, we might benefit from a simpler offense--but a frosh could not run our current offense.  Even sophomore Hogan had to work into it gradually.  The concept is that our sophisticate pro-style offense should attract excellent QBs who want to play in the NFL, since they get pro-training and can show off their ability to deal with multiple sets, calling plays at the line, etc.  It is supposed to help in recruiting.  We might not have gotten Chryst if we played the kind of offense that a frosh could step right into.

So, like Luck as his frosh year, Chryst is out for the the year.  The alternative to Hogan is probably just Crower.  I would be tempted to give Crower a "package" and let him play some downs as we did with Hogan for a few games under Nottingham.  Let's see if Crower can be a much more accurate pocket passer and change things up from time to time.  Give the defenses something else to prepare for, and give Crower some opportunities.

Opposing defenses do not seem to have any problem dealing with the "complexity" of the Stanford offense (I personally cannot remember the last time we outcomplexed any opponent). .  Why should talented and intelligent freshman QBs on our side of the field be any different?

Re: However this game turns out - Rally - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 01:09 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=10788.msg101000#msg101000 date=1412538282]Hogan could only function with a limited package at first.

I think it says something that that was also his best year so far. The coaching staff keeps giving him more responsibility and he keeps performing worse. Maybe it's time to roll things back, simplify, and play to his strengths rather than continue to pretending that he can do the stuff Luck did.
[/quote]

Excellent point.  On the otherhand he had Ertz, Taylor and company his first year, Gaffney and an exceptional OL his second.  This year?

Re: However this game turns out - BostonCard - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 01:09 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=10788.msg101000#msg101000 date=1412538282]Hogan could only function with a limited package at first.

I think it says something that that was also his best year so far. The coaching staff keeps giving him more responsibility and he keeps performing worse. Maybe it's time to roll things back, simplify, and play to his strengths rather than continue to pretending that he can do the stuff Luck did.
[/quote]

Just FYI:
2012: 109/152 (72%), 1096 yards, 7.2 ypa, 9 TD, 3 INT, QBR 148
2013: 180/295 (61%), 2635 yards, 8.9 ypa, 20 TD, 10 INT, QBR 152
2014: 89/136 (65%), 1041 yards, 7.7 ypa, 8 TD, 4 INT, QBR 143

BC

Re: However this game turns out - washingtonismoney - 10-05-2014

Hogan's best year was 2012 in the sense that we had zippo expectations for him, as he'd started out the year third-string and we were hoping for someone to clear the Josh Nunes bar. Expectations are always the toughest opponent to beat, as you can tell by comparing the opinions of a Stanford fan and a (non-Stanford) 49ers fan on Jim Harbaugh or Greg Roman.

Re: However this game turns out - stupac2 - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 02:00 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Just FYI:
2012: 109/152 (72%), 1096 yards, 7.2 ypa, 9 TD, 3 INT, QBR 148
2013: 180/295 (61%), 2635 yards, 8.9 ypa, 20 TD, 10 INT, QBR 152
2014: 89/136 (65%), 1041 yards, 7.7 ypa, 8 TD, 4 INT, QBR 143

BC

As much as people rag on it I like QBR for college (especially since adjusted takes opponents into account), and he's taken a brobdingnagian step back in QBR this year after being basically the same in 2012 and 2013 (that was my poor recollection, I had the numbers backward in my head). Maybe it's cherry-picking and maybe the last couple games have just been his 2013 Utahs, but I definitely think we'd be better off with a simpler offense that does less with more.

Re: However this game turns out - ChicagoCard - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 10:50 AM)garvin link Wrote:If there's a quarterback change, which I sincerely doubt, the new guy will be Evan Crower. Shaw said in August that the gap between Ryan Burns and Crower was so vast that there was no prospect of a competition for No. 2. As for Chryst, the last true freshman to start at quarterback for Stanford was John Paye, on an abysmal 1-10 team more than 30 years ago. Not gonna happen.

Shaw on Crower (source):

Quote:He’s 6-5, has a quick release, strong arm, a fourth-year senior, knows the offense inside and out. He’s ready to play.

Good old B/R says Hogan and Crower exhaust their eligibility after this season. Wrong on both counts, isn't that?


Re: However this game turns out - Spiny_Norman - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 02:00 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10788.msg101003#msg101003 date=1412539782]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=10788.msg101000#msg101000 date=1412538282]Hogan could only function with a limited package at first.

I think it says something that that was also his best year so far. The coaching staff keeps giving him more responsibility and he keeps performing worse. Maybe it's time to roll things back, simplify, and play to his strengths rather than continue to pretending that he can do the stuff Luck did.
[/quote]

Just FYI:
2012: 109/152 (72%), 1096 yards, 7.2 ypa, 9 TD, 3 INT, QBR 148
2013: 180/295 (61%), 2635 yards, 8.9 ypa, 20 TD, 10 INT, QBR 152
2014: 89/136 (65%), 1041 yards, 7.7 ypa, 8 TD, 4 INT, QBR 143

BC
[/quote]

In ESPN's advanced QB ratings, Hogan is 92nd out of 127.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr/_/page/2

Last year, he finished the season at 16th.  He is lower in just about every category in 2014 vs. 2013.  While Hogan is the starter and I do not expect any change (barring an injury), I would also not be surprised if Crower gets a series or two vs. WSU.

Re: However this game turns out - BostonCard - 10-05-2014

Picking up on this thread a bit, I would be curious as to why Hogan is not performing as he was last year and the year before.  My suspicion is that the inability for us to truly establish the running game as we have the last several years, coupled with the inability of the offensive line to give him enough time to develop the long play action pass that were the signature of his play last year (especially). 

I'm not sure what the fix is, but I'm pretty sure that the answer will not be "change quarterbacks", at least not this year.  We have seen Crower, and while he has done about as well as can be expected for a backup, I doubt he would be better than Hogan at this point.  Burns has shown that he is taking longer to pick up playing in a modern passing offense than we had all hoped, and Chryst is a freshman, and WIM has outlined quite convincingly why playing him would be a mistake both for now and for Chryst's future development.

BC

Re: However this game turns out - washingtonismoney - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 07:43 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Picking up on this thread a bit, I would be curious as to why Hogan is not performing as he was last year and the year before.  My suspicion is that the inability for us to truly establish the running game as we have the last several years, coupled with the inability of the offensive line to give him enough time to develop the long play action pass that were the signature of his play last year (especially). 

I think it's a couple of things. As you say, the ineffectiveness of the run places Hogan in more unfavorable positions.

But I think another factor is that Hogan is very effective as a complementary piece but not-so-effective as the leading piece. The stats between 2012 and 2014 are quite similar in many ways -- Hogan's averaging 27 passes/game this year, versus 25 passes/game in 2012, with similar YPA. (Though Hogan is much less effective when running the ball in 2014.) I suspect that a high volume of passing plays means Hogan has to *carry* the offense, as opposed to picking his spots where he can be most effective.

By contrast Hogan threw 21 times/game in 2013.

The lack of an offensive line, plus the middling effectiveness of the running backs, means the focus is on the passing offense, and I'm not sure Hogan can deliver. In that sense calling for a new QB is rational. But QBs who can carry offenses are pretty rare, so I suspect the hope is forlorn.

Re: However this game turns out - 81alum - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 07:51 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10788.msg101075#msg101075 date=1412563410]
Picking up on this thread a bit, I would be curious as to why Hogan is not performing as he was last year and the year before.  My suspicion is that the inability for us to truly establish the running game as we have the last several years, coupled with the inability of the offensive line to give him enough time to develop the long play action pass that were the signature of his play last year (especially). 

I think it's a couple of things. As you say, the ineffectiveness of the run places Hogan in more unfavorable positions.

But I think another factor is that Hogan is very effective as a complementary piece but not-so-effective as the leading piece. The stats between 2012 and 2014 are quite similar in many ways -- Hogan's averaging 27 passes/game this year, versus 25 passes/game in 2012, with similar YPA. (Though Hogan is much less effective when running the ball in 2014.) I suspect that a high volume of passing plays means Hogan has to *carry* the offense, as opposed to picking his spots where he can be most effective.

By contrast Hogan threw 21 times/game in 2013.

The lack of an offensive line, plus the middling effectiveness of the running backs, means the focus is on the passing offense, and I'm not sure Hogan can deliver. In that sense calling for a new QB is rational. But QBs who can carry offenses are pretty rare, so I suspect the hope is forlorn.
[/quote]

I think WIM has got it nailed.

Last year and before, the running back loomed so large in the minds of the opponents that we nearly always faced 8 or 9 in the box.  Sometimes this frustrated our running game, but it also made Hogan a far more effective passer off of play action or down the field with one on one coverage on Monty and Rector.  This year teams can bracket Monty and play more zone pass protection since they do not feel the need to keep 8 or 9 in the box.  The fact that our running game is averaging somewhere in the vicinity of last year's averages means it is actually quite inferior, since we are running much more against normal defenses than against stacked boxes.

In short, Hogan was far more effective when he had a dominant running game to keep the focus off of him.  Telegraphing throws is not so bad against man-on-man coverage--it is dangerous against zone and especially when you have extra safeties that can read the QB's eyes break and on the ball.  But if those safeties are up in run defense....

Re: However this game turns out - Renaissance Man - 10-06-2014

I know that their is a strong sentiment against blaming officials, so I guess I am asking for an onslaught of negative arrows by stating some of the things I saw on Saturday.

One obvious no-call on a Stanford PI.
At least three obvious no-calls on ND PIs.

An obvious trap ruled a first down on the field and in the replay booth to extend a drive.

Shittu being held by the facemask with an official looking right at him.

ND's band receiving a warning, but being overlooked when they ignored the warning, even with Shaw's constant complaints.

A third down ND pass completion on third down being marked at least two feet forward, resulting in a first down.

These are the plays that I believe are incontestable.  Their are many, many others that did not stand out to the same degree, but ALL BUT ONE of the questionable calls, non-calls and questionable ball placements worked in ND's favor.  I would be happy to watch the video with a ND fan and see if they could contest that statement.

If this were reversed--Stanford is given these unfair calls and they are taken away from ND, we have a net change of eight first downs, many of them 3rd down conversions.  There are many people here who are good with numbers and statistics--is there any way that this change does not make a dramatic difference in yardage, time of possession and points?  With the officiating swinging in Stanford's favor to the same degree that it favored ND, is there any way that Stanford does not win comfortably and today's comments are about how the offense still has issues, but seems to be making progress? To continually say that biased officiating should be ignored as a factor in the outcomes of games is just foolish, especially when it has as much impact, start to finish as it did on Saturday.



Re: However this game turns out - StanFan88 - 10-06-2014

(10-06-2014, 02:40 PM)Renaissance Man link Wrote:I know that their is a strong sentiment against blaming officials, so I guess I am asking for an onslaught of negative arrows by stating some of the things I saw on Saturday.

You're right there is strong sentiment against that.  I think you have to expect it when you go to South Bend, regardless of what conference supplies the refs.

Bottom line - when you put yourself in a position to have the game decided by the refs, you have already lost.  This game was there for the taking, and the offense stunk it up for the third time in a row against a quality opponent.

Re: However this game turns out - Renaissance Man - 10-06-2014

(10-06-2014, 02:48 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=Renaissance Man link=topic=10788.msg101163#msg101163 date=1412631643]
I know that their is a strong sentiment against blaming officials, so I guess I am asking for an onslaught of negative arrows by stating some of the things I saw on Saturday.

You're right there is strong sentiment against that.  I think you have to expect it when you go to South Bend, regardless of what conference supplies the refs.

Bottom line - when you put yourself in a position to have the game decided by the refs, you have already lost.  This game was there for the taking, and the offense stunk it up for the third time in a row against a quality opponent.
[/quote]

This is where we agree/disagree.  I agree with you if we are talking about one bad call.  I would argue that EVERY game is in a position to be decided by the refs--give me a whistle and motivation and the Stanford women's basketball team could beat the Lakers.  The officiating bias was pervasive throughout the ND game, and, I would argue, WAS the reason we were in a position to lose the game.